No. 2-- 07--0220 Fil ed: 2-6-08

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Ca rr o ll Co un t y. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) Nos. 06--DT--52 ) 06--TR--812 ) 06--TR--813 ) 06--CM--161 ) ) COREY A. PIE PER, ) Ho no r ab le ) John F . Joyce, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: The St at e ap pea ls fro m an or der gr ant ing t he mot ion in lim ineof def endan t, Corey A. Pi eper, to ex clu de t he r es ult of

a b l ood al coh

ol co nt en t ( BAC ) t es t ad minist er ed t o him af t er t he Mt . Ca rr o ll police arrested hi

m f or dri vi ng u nde r the i nf l uen ce (D UI) (625 IL CS 5/1 1--501 (a)(2) (W est 200 6)). Citing section 11--50 1.8 (f) of the Ill in ois Vehi cle Code (Code) (625 ILCS 5 /11--5 01.8( f) (West 2006) ), defen

dant asserted that, because the poli ce repor ted h i s B A C res

ul t to th e S ecre tar

y of Sta te under the provis ions

of the Code cr eat ing a su mmary driver 's li cense s uspens ion f

or any dri ver under age 21 with a

BAC over 0.00 (see

625 ILCS 5/6 --208. 2, 11- -501. 8 (West 2006) (the zero-t oleranc e provisions) ), t he State

wa s p rec l ude d f rom usi ng th e BA C res ul t in a cri m i na l prosec uti on. The court agreed and ex cl uded the resul

t. We hold that the reporting of a z ero-t oler ance vi ol ati on i s n otNo. 2-- 07--0220

-2-

r ele vant to whether BA

C testi ng h as b een done pursuan t to secti on 11- -501.1 (a) (625 ILC S 5/11--501.1(a) (West 2006) (the general i m pl i ed consent provi si

on) ) or s ec ti on

11--501.8(a) and that se cti on 11--501.8(f) works t o excl ude BAC res

ults onl y w hen t est ing is do ne exc lusively purs uant to se cti on 1 1-- 501 .8( a). A s def

en da nt d i d n ot sh ow that h i s te sti ng wa s u nd er s ec ti on 11--50 1.8(a), the excl usi on was i

mproper, and we theref

ore reverse the excl

usi on order and reman

d the cause. Off ic er Den nis A say of the Mt. Ca

rrol l pol i ce de partm en t arreste d def

endan t for D UI o n August 13, 2006. Defen dant was under 21 at the tim e. Asay al so ticketedde f

enda n t for i ll egal tran sp ortati on of alcohol. The Stat e later charged defendant with underage drinki ng (235 ILCS 5/6--2 0 (West 200 6)). In t he r esu lting p ro cee dings, defend ant fil ed a mot ion in lim

ines ee kin

g to excl ude under se cti on 11
- - 50 1. 8( f) t he r es ult of t he BAC t est administe re d aft er his arr est . I n t he mot ion, defend ant adm itted t ha t Asa y had r ea d h im

both the zero-t oleranc e (625 ILCS 5/11--501.8(c) (Wes t 200 6) ) a nd general im pli ed consent (625 ILCS 5/11--501.1(c) (West 2006)) warni ngs. He n ot ed that t he polic e had r ep o r t ed his BA

C re sul t to the Sec reta ry of Stat e as a zero-to le

rance v iolation. He asse

rted t hat thi s rep orti ng sh owe d that h

i s te sti ng wa s purs ua nt to s ec ti on

11--501.8(a) and that, under se cti on 11--50 1.8(f

), BAC res

ults obtai ned un der section 11--501.8(a) are in adm is si ble i n cri mi nal pro ceedings. A

t t he he ar in g o n t he mot ion, t he St at e wa s pr epa re d t o s ubmit e vidence of Asa y's in tent in gi vi ng the test, but t he court decided that i t could rule wi

thout heari

ng that evi

dence. T he trial court hel d that, by sub

mi tt in g a report to the Secretary of State under the zer o to le ranceprovisi

ons, Asay had ef fecti vel y e le cted to test defendan t under sec t ion 1 1- -5 01. 8( a) , a nd the i na dm i ss i bi l i ty rul e of section 11--50 1.8(f

) there f ore appl i ed. I t s o r al c o mment s s ug ge st t ha t it be lie ved that a BAC test report ed under the zero-to le rance provi si ons neces sari ly mus t have b eenNo. 2-- 07--0220

-3-

conductedun

de r s ec ti on

11- -50 1.8 (a) rath

er th an se cti on 11 --5 01 .1( a) . Th

e S tate f i l ed a c er ti f i ca te of i m pai rm en t and appe aled un

der Su prem e Court Ru

l e 604 (a)(1) (2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 6 04(a)( 1)). It now argues t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t misint er pr et ed se ct io n 11 --5 01. 8. Defend ant co nt ends t hat t he co ur t 's i nte rpreta ti on was co rr ec t , bu t als o ar gu es t ha t t his a pp ea l is not pr op er unde r Ru le 604 (a )( 1) . We consider fi rst why the appeal

is proper and then

expl ai n wh y s ection 11--501.8(f) did not make defen dant's BA C resul t inadm is si ble. Defend ant cl ai

ms that t hi s appeal

is not pro per under

Rul e 604 (a)(1) because the rul in g at is sue here wa s a s i

m pl e ev i den tia ry rul i ng, r athe r than one s uppre ssi ng evidenc e, and be cau se t he evi dence was

not ne ces sary

f or the State' s ca se. He is w r o ng o n bo t h p o int s. Fir st , alt ho ug h Rule 604(a)(1) prov

i de s f or"a pp ea l ** * f rom an ord er or j udgm en t th e s ub sta n ti v e e f f ec t of wh i ch re su l ts in *** suppressi

ng ev ide nce" (210 Ill. 2d R. 604 (a )( 1) ), t he su pr eme co ur t has he ld t hat , " [f]o r t he purposes *** of

Rul e 604 (a)(1), th

ereis no substanti

ve di stin ction be tween evi dence that i s 'ex

cl uded' and evidence that is 'suppressed.' " People v . Drum , 194 Ill . 2d 485, 491 (2000). T he court t hus permi tt ed t he St at e's appeal

under Rul

e 604(a)(1) of an orderexclud ing cer t ain evidenc e as not falli ng wit hin the resi dual

he arsa y ex cepti on. Drum , 1 94 I ll. 2d a t 491 -9 2. Unde r t he r ule in Drum , t he order her e w as ap pe ala ble r eg ar dle ss o f whe t he rit wa s a su pp r es sio n o r de ro rmer ely e vid en t iar y. Second, contrary to what de f en da nt s ugg es ts, th

i s c ourt c an

not se con d- gu es s th

e S tate ' s c er

ti f i ca te of impairment by cons ider ing whet her exclud ed e vidence was nece ssar y to t he St at e's cas e. Pe o ple
v. Yo ung , 82 Ill . 2d 234, 247 (1 98 0) . Th e S tate ' s c er

ti f i ca te her e is t hus s ufficient t o e st ablish the impairment of

i ts ca se , de sp i

te the p oss i

bi l i ty tha t othe r ev i de nc e c oul

d sub sti tute f orth e B A C res

ul t. Befo re t ur ning t o t he su

bs tan ceof this case, we consi

der the appli

cabl e standard of rev

ie w. The Stat e asserts that the iss ue i s one of statuto ry i

nterpretat ion a

nd tha t we the re for e r eview t heNo. 2-- 07--0220

-4-

matter de novo . Def

endan t asse rts tha t, as thi s wa s an evi den tia ry ruli ng by the trial court , we can reverse only

if the tr ial cour t abuse d it s d isc r et io n. "T he de t er minat io n o f wh et he rev ide nc e is re levant and a dmissible is a matt er wit hin the d iscre t ion o f the t rial co ur t , a ndwe wil l n ot reverse such a deter mi nation unless the tr ial

cour t abuses that discretion." People v . Turner , 373 Ill . App. 3d 121, 124 (2007 ). "Howe

ve r, ' " [a tri al] court*** abus es it s discr et ion whe n it mak es a n er ro r o f law." ' " Turner , 373 Ill . App. 3d a t 124 , q uo t ing Naj as Cortés v. Orion Securi ties, Inc. , 362 Ill . App. 3d 1043, 1047 (2005), quo ting Koon v. Uni ted St ates , 518 U.S. 81, 100, 135 L. Ed. 2d 392, 414, 11 6 S . C t. 2035, 2047 (1996). Here, whether the court was correct t o excl ude the BAC

resul t depends en t ire ly o n w he t he rit un de r st o o d t he law , an d in particul ar se cti on 11- -501.8 , correctl y . Thi s is a

que sti on of the c orrectness

of the court' s statutory

in terpret ation, a m

atter that we revie

w de novo , a s th

e S tate correct ly asserts. See People v . Resni ck , 373 Il l . Ap p. 3d 16 3, 164 ( 2007) . We now review the rel evan t stat uto ry provisi ons as a pref ace t o o ur co nsider at ion o f the ad m i ss i b i l i ty of d efenda nt 's BAC r esu lt. In su mmary, se ct ion 1 1- -5 01. 8( f) is silent a s t o t he admi ssi b i l i ty of BAC re sult s o bt ained u nder sec t ion 1 1- -5 01. 1( a) (t he ge ner al impli ed c ons en t pr o visio n), but report ed as zero-to le rance v iolations per the m

andate of section 11--501.8( d) . However, section 11--501.1(c) makes such resul

ts admissi ble. Sec ti on 11- -5 01. 8( a) pr ovid es fo r t he implied co nsent to BAC testi ng of a dri

ver under 21 arrested fo ran y Co de o ffen se if t he ar re st ing o ffi

cer has p ro bable ca use t o be lieve tha t t he driv er has been drin kin g: "A person who i s l ess than

21 ye ars of age an

d who dr i ve s or

is in actual ph ys ic al c ontr olof a mot or vehicle up on t he pu blic highways o f this S t at e sha ll be deemed t o ha ve giv en consent to a chemical

test or tests of

bl ood, b rea th, or ur i ne f or th e p urp ose

ofNo. 2-- 07--0220

-5-

det er mini ng the al cohol content of the person' s bl ood if arrested, as ev

ide nced b y the is suance of a U ni f orm Traf f i c T i cket for any

vi olation of the Ill in ois Veh ic le Code or a sim

il ar prov i si on of a local ordin

ance, if a pol

ic e off ic er haspro babl

e cause to bel

ie ve that the driv

er hasco nsumed any amou nt of an al coholi c bev erage base d up on e vidence of t he dr iver's phy si cal con di ti on or ot her fi rst ha nd k nowl edge of the pol

i ce of f i cer." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) 625 IL CS 5/1 1--501 .8(a) (W est 200 6). Sec ti on 11 --5 01 .8( f

) l i m i ts th e adm i ss i b i l i ty of re su l ts o f BA C te sti n g don e pur suan

t to se cti on 11--50 1.8(a): "Th e res

ul ts of any chem ic al testing perf

ormed i n a cc orda nc e w i th s ub se cti on ( a) of thi s Sec tion areno t ad miss ible i

n a ny ci vi l or cr i m i na l proc ee di ng , ex ce pt that the re sul

ts of t he testi n g m ay b e c on si dere d a t ahear ing held und er Sec t ion 2
-- 118 of t his Co de [ co ncer ning res ci ss i on of the su m mary su sp ensi on] . How ever, the

res ul ts of the tes ti ng may not be used to im pose driv er's l ic ense s ancti ons under Secti on 11--501.1 o f this Code [the general im pli ed cons en t provi sion]. A

la w enf orcemen t o ff ic er may , however, pursue a statutory sum mary su sp ensi on o f dr iving p rivile ge s u nde r S ec t io n 11
-- 50 1. 1 o f t hi s Code if ot her phy

si cal evi dence or f i rs t h and knowledge forms the b asis of that susp ension." 625 I LCS 5/11-- 501.8( f

) (We st 2006 ). The las t r ele va nt po r t io n o f se ct io n 11--501. 8 is section 11--501.8(d), whi ch m andates di scl osureo f BA C r es ult s o ve r0. 00 o f dr ive r s u nd er 21 , wh ile recogn izi ng th at som e dri vers under 21 m ay ha ve be en tested u nde r section 11--50 1.1(a): "If the person refus es testing or submi ts to a t es t t ha t dis cl

ose s a n a l coh ol con centr ati on o f mor e t ha n

0.0 0, t h e l aw en f orc em en t of f i cer s h al l i m med i ate l y su b m i t aNo. 2-- 07--0220

-6-

sworn report to the Secretary of State on a form pres crib ed by the Secr eta

ry of State , cer t ify ingthat t he test or tests w ere req ue ste d un de r s ub se cti

on ( a) a nd the pe rs on re f us ed to su b m i t to a test o r tests o r subm itted to tes ti ng wh i ch di sc l ose d a

n a l coh ol con centr ati on of m ore th an

0.00. The l

aw en f orc em en t of f i cer s h al l su b m i t th e s am e swor n repor t w hen a person under the age of

21 su bm i ts to te sti ng un de r Se cti on 1 1-- 501 .1 of

t his Co de a nd t he testing discloses an al

cohol concen

trat ion of more than 0.00 an

d le ss than 0.08 . Up on recei pt o f the s worn report of a lawen

f orce men t of f i cer, the Se cre

tary of Sta te sha ll ent er t he dr iver's licens e sa nct ion o n t he individual's d riving re co rd and t he sa nct ions shall be effect ive on t he 46 th day fo llowing t he da t e no t ice o f the sanc t ion wa s given t o t he pers on." (E

m phasi s ad ded.) 6 25 IL CS 5/1 1--501 .8(d) (W est 200 6). Becaus e sect ion 11--501.8 refers to section 11--50 1.1, t he terms of that sect ion are als o pla inly relevan t t o o ur analy

sis. The whole of section 11--50 1.1 applies to all dr iv ers arres ted f or DUI: "A

ny pe rs on w ho d ri ve s or i s i n a ctu al ph y si cal con trol of a m otorvehicle up on t he pu blic hi ghway s of thi s State shall

be deem ed to h av e g i v en con se n t, sub j ec t to t he pr ovisio ns of Sec ti on 1 1-- 501 .2, to a

ch em i cal tes t ortes ts of

bl ood, b rea th, or ur i ne f orthe pur pos e of det er mini ng the c onten

t of al cohol , other dru

g or dr ugs , or i ntox i ca ti ng com poun d or compoundso ran y co mbina t io n t he r eo f in t he pe r so n's blo o d if

ar re st ed, as e vidence d by t he is suance of a Uni f orm T raf f i c Ticket, for any

off ense as defi ned i n Sec t ion 1 1- -5 01 [ t he se cti on creating the

off ense of DUI] or a sim

il ar provisi on of a local ordin

ance, or if arrested f orviolatin g Section 11--401 [c onc er ningmot or vehicle ac cident s involving death or personal i nj ury ]." (Em phasi s ad ded.) 6 25 IL CS 5/1 1--501 .1(a) (W est 200 6).No. 2-- 07--0220

-7-

Sec ti on 11--501.1(c) expli

ci tly recogniz es that drivers under 21 may be sub

j ect to secti

on 11-
- 501.1( a), and i

t further provides

that BAC test results of dri vers un der 21 tested und

er se cti on 11-
- 501.1( a) are admissi

ble in related crimi

nal pro secutions: "A pe r so n w ho is u nd er t he ag e o f 21 at t he t ime the pers on i s req ue ste d to s

ub m i t to a test as pro vi

ded above sh

all , i n add itio n t o t he wa rnings p ro vided fo r in t his Sec t ion, be furt her war ned by t he law e nfor cement officer re que st ingthe test th at i f th e p er son

su b m i ts to t he tes t or tests p rovi de d i n p ara gra ph (a) of t his S ec t io n a nd t he alc o ho l co nc en t r at io n in t he person's b lood or breath is greater than 0.00 an d le ss than 0.08, a su spe nsion o f the person's pri

vi le ge to operate a m

otor vehi cle, as

provi ded u nde r Secti ons 6 --208.2[se t t ing t he ze r o - t o ler an ce pe r io ds o f dr ive r 's lic en se su sp en sio ns] an d 1 1-
- 50 1. 8 o f t his C o de , will be impo se d. T he r es ult s o f t his t es t sha ll b e a dm i ss i bl e i n a ci vi l or cr i m i na l ac ti on or pr oc eed ingari

si ng f rom an arres t f oran of f en se asde f i ne d i n S ec ti on 1 1-- 501 of

this Code or a sim il ar provisi on of a local ordin

ance or pu rsua nt to S ec ti on

11- -5 01. 4 in pr os ecu t ions f orreckle ss hom

ic ide brought under the Cri

mi nal Code of 1961. These test results, however, sha ll be ad missibl

e o nly i n act ions or pro ceedi

ngs di rectly related to t he i

nci dent upon whi

ch the test reques

t was m ade." 625 IL CS 5/1 1--501 .1(c) (W est 200 6). Sec t ions 11--501.1(d) an

d (e ) provi

def or th e sum

mary su sp en si on of the dri ve r' s l i cens e of anyone who re fuses t est ing und er sec t ion 11 --501.1(a) o r who, after all owing testi

ng unde r that section , shows a B AC

of a t le ast 0.08 . 625 IL CS 5/1 1--501 .1(d), (e ) (We st 2006 ). W i th these provi si ons as b ackground, we c an fo llow wha t happ ens w hen a driv er under 21 is arrested for DUI an

d hasa B A C ov

er 0 .00an d les s th an 0.0 8. S ec ti on

11--501.1(a) makes no age dist inctio ns in

who mus

t subm it to t es ting; a d river unde r 2 1 ca n be t est ed u nder t hat sec t ion.No. 2-- 07--0220

1 T his di scus si

on as su mes th at th e ev i den ce

su gg ests that t he i

ntoxicant in

volved i n the offense is a lco ho l. -8- Pu r su an t t o se ct io n 1 1-
- 50 1. 1( c) , be fo r e a dr ive run de r21 is tested u nde r section 11--50 1.1(a), he orsh e mu st be wa rne d o f t he po ss ibilit y o f bo t h t he ge ne r al s um mar y suspen si on and the zeroto le rancesum mary sus pension. Se cti

on 11 --5 01 .1( c) sp ec i f

i ca l l y sta tes th at, f or a te st u nd er s ec ti on 11--50 1.1(a), a B A C re su l t be twe en 0.0 0 a nd 0.0 8 of a d ri ve r un de r 21 ca n b e u se d " i

n a cti ons or proceedin gs dire ct ly relat ed t o t he incident upo n w hich t he test r equest was made." 625 I LCS 5/11--501.1(c) (West 2006). Fi nal ly , section 11--501.8(d) man dates that a B AC r es ult between 0.00 and 0. 08 o f adr ive run de r21 be r ep o r t ed t o t he S ec r et ar y of State for a z ero-tole rance s um mary sus pens ion, whatever the sec tion under wh

ic h the dri ver wastested. T o be sure, when a driv er under 21 is arrested for DUI, he or she i s al s o su bje ct t o t es t ing un de rse ct io n 1 1-
- 50 1. 8( a) ; if p r o ba ble cause exi sts for a DUI arrest, t hen the arrest in

g offi cer mustal so have probab le cause to beli

eve that the driv er has b een

drin kin g. 1 However, we cann

ot see any reason that, on a pro per DUI arrest, an off i cer w oul d ch

oose to test und

er se cti on 11- -501.8 (a). Wh en a driv er under 21 i s arrested for any Code of f ense , a n d p rob ab l e c au se

ex i sts to t hink that he or she h

as been drin kin g, then he or she

is subj ect to testing un

der sec t ion 1 1--501 .8(a). Pu rsu ant to section 11--501.8(c), bef ore he or she i s tested under section 11--501.8(a), he o r she must be wa rne d t hat a BAC o ver 0. 00 w ill re sult in a zer o- t oler ance dr iver's licens e su spe nsion. Pu rsu ant to se cti

on 11--501.8(f), BAC resul

ts obtained un

der section 11--501.8(a) ar e in ad miss ible in any pr oce ed i n gsoth er th an su m mar y su sp ensi on re sc i ss i on

h ea ri n gs . J us t as BA C res ul ts between 0.00 an d 0 .08 of un der-2 1 d ri v er s te ste d u

n der s ec ti on

11 --5 01 .1( a) m

us t b e rep orte d to t he Secre taryNo. 2-- 07--0220

-9-

of State purs

uan t to secti on 11- -501.8 (d), ove r-0.0 0 res

ul ts of dri ve rstes ted un de r s ec ti on 11--50 1.8(a) m

ust b e reported

to the Secretary

of State pursuan t to secti on 11- -501.8 (d). As t his su m mar y sh ows , the adm

i ss i b i l i ty of a BAC resul

t depends on whethe

r the test was conductedun

de r s ec ti on 1 1-- 501 .1( a) or se cti on 11--50 1.8(a). The trial

court apparently

concl uded that it co uld d ecide which se ct ion t he po lice app lied by not ing whet her t he po lice rep or t ed t he r es ult to the Secretary of State as a zero-to le rancevi ol ati on. Th at w asan

err or. N othi ng i n e i the r s ec ti on su gg ests that re porti

ng de term i ne s th e s ec ti on u

nd er w hi ch tes ti ng wa s done . In

de ed , se cti

on 11--501.8(d) ma

ndates tha

t the pol i cerep ort th e re sul

t asa z ero- tol era

nc e v i ol ati on, reg ard

l es s of whet her t he t est ing was do ne und er sec t ion 1 1- -5 01. 1( a) or sec t ion 1 1- -5 01. 8( a) . U sing re po rt ing to tri gg er i n ad m i ss i b i l i ty under section 11--501.8(f) would thus n ull if y the part o f s ection 11--501.1(c) that makes BAC r esu lts be t wee n 0. 00 a nd 0.08 of driv

ers under 21 adm

is si ble when obtaine d under section 11--50 1.1(a). We not e t hat sect ion 1 1- -5 01. 1( c) do es no t nullif y sect ion 1 1- -5 01. 8( f), even o n t he as su m ption that police

wil l a lwa ys test unders ect ion 1 1- -5 01. 1( a) when p os sible. S ect ions 11--501.1(a) an d 1 1-
- 50 1. 8( a) ap ply indif feren t, albei t o verlappi

ng, si tuations. Section 11--501.1(a) applie s only

when a driv

er has been arrested for a sect ion 11--501 o ff ense(DUI) or a section 11--401 offense ( a mo t o rve hic le acc i den t in vol vi ng d eath or person

al i nj ury ). Section 11--501.8(a) appli es when a driv er is under 21, the driv

er hasbe en ar re st ed fo r a ny offense u nder t he Co de, and t he ar re st ing officer has p ro bable ca use t o be lieve tha t t he dr iver has been d rinking. The ci rcumstances in whi ch section 11--501.8 alone appl ie s are thus l

im ited, but real . For exam

ple , a driv

er under 21 co uld sho w n o sig n o f int o xic ation when arrested f or a t raff ic off ense, b ut be in possessi on of anNo. 2-- 07--0220

-10-

op en, ha lf- emp t y, can o f beer . S uch a driv er would be s

ubj ect to testing un

der section 11--501.8(a) onl y , a n d th e ex cl us i on s of se cti on 11 --5 01 .8( f

) w oul d a pp l y to th e d ri v er ' s B A C res

ul t. Defend ant ar gue s t hat sec t ion 1 1- -5 01. 8( c) is ambiguo us a ndt ha t we sho uld t he r efo r e a pp ly t he rule of leni

ty to interpret the statute i n h i s f avor. He al

so argues that, be caus e se cti ons 1 1--501 .1 and 11--501.8 are separate enactmen ts, we should n

ot read them together. As wenow discuss, (1) t he r ule o f lenity is inapplicable her e, and (2 ) t he r elevant po rt ions o f the pr ovisio ns ar e pa rt of t he sam e en actm en t and thus shoul d be

read together. The rule of

l en i ty i s a ca non of statutory c onstruc

tion that req ui res th at "pena l statutes, w

here amb iguous, *** be construed to aff ord len ity to the accused. " People v . Hicks , 164 Ill . 2d 218, 222 (1995 ). T he rule is ina pp li cabl e here b ec au se se cti on 1 1-- 501 .8 is n

ot am bi guou s. S ec ti on 11
-- 50 1. 8( f) bars m

ost uses of BAC resul

ts when testin

g is under section 11--501.8(a), but it does not sp ec ify t heall ow ed

us esof BA C re sul ts w he n d ri ve rs un de r 21 are

tes ted un de r s ec ti on 11--501.1(a) an

d th e res ul ts are be twe en 0.0 0 a nd 0.0 8. Th at om i ss i on is no amb igu it y. N o t hing in t he section can

be reasonably

read to suggest that a s ec ti on

11 --5 01 .1( a) tes

t re su l t becom es a s ec ti on 11--50 1.8(a) test result because the driver is a pe rs on s ub j ec t to ze ro tolera

nc e. S ec ti on

11--50 1.8 provides n o rul e a b out th e adm i ss i b i l i ty of BA C res ul

ts ob tai ne d un de r s ec ti on 1 1-- 501 .1( a). For such a rule, one ne edsto read se cti on 11- -501.1 (c). Defend ant arg

ue s th at w e shou

l d n ot construe sections

11--501.1 and 11--501.8 t ogether because t hey are sep ar at e ena ct ment s on se pa rate su bj ec ts. As w e h

ave j us t di scus se d, w e do not need se cti on 1 1-- 501 .1 to c onc l

ude tha t the excl us i on cr ea t ed by se ct io n 1 1-
- 50 1. 8( f) is inapp lica ble to BAC re su lt s o bt aine d u nde r s ec t io n 11
-- 50 1. 1( a) . H o we ver , w e no t e t hat de fe ndant is w ro ng about t he r elat ionship be t wee n t he sections. Section 11--501.8, in cl udin g section 11--501.8(f), wasNo. 2-- 07--0220

-11-

created by

Publ i c A ct 8 8-- 588 (Pu

b. A ct 8 8-- 588 , §5 , ef

f . Ja nu ary 1, 1 995 ). Th

e p ortion of se cti on 11--501.1(c) th at dea

l s wi th the adm is si bi li ty of BA C resul ts between 0.00 and 0.08 of dri vers un der 21 wa s c r ea t ed by t he sa me a ct . Pu b. Ac t 88
- - 58 8, §5 , eff. Ja nu ar y 1, 19 95 . T he leg isla t ur e, in asse mbli ng t he a ct , t hus sa w t hat se ct io n 11
-- 50 1. 8( f) had left op en t he qu est ion o f the ad m i ss i b i l i ty of BAC res ults b etween 0.00 and 0.08 of dri vers un der 21 obtaine d under

sec t ion 1 1- -5 01. 1( a) , a nd an swe red that ques

tion i n the am ended s ection 11- -501.1 (c). We hold, theref

ore, t hat the report in

g of a zero-to le

rancev i ol ati

on i s i rre l ev an t to whether t he BAC t est ing was do ne pu rsu ant t o s ect ion 1 1- -5 01. 1( a) and t hus t o w het her t he test re su lt is ad miss ible in a D UI pr o se cu t io n by fo rc e o f se ct io n 11
-- 50 1. 1( c) . I f t he test was connected to an arrest for DUI and the arrestee was warned i n accordance wi

th section 11--501.1(c), then t he t es t will be deem ed adm in is tered under section 11--501.1(a), even i f the arrestee was

also e l i gi bl e f ort est ing under section 11--50 1.8(a) . In tho se si tua ti on s where se ctions 11--501.1(a) and 11--501.8(a) overlap, t est ingma

y b e conducted under

bot h pr ovisio ns, bu t , p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 1 1- -5 01. 1( c) , t he resu l t is adm i ssi bl e i n a prosec uti on f or DUI. Defend ant wa s s

ub j ec t to test in

g under section 11-- 501.1( a) as aDUI a rre ste e, an

d h e adm i ts t he police gave h

im the warni ngs requi red by section 11--501.1(c) as a dri ver under 21. He thus

me t t he sta tutory req ui rem en ts f or testi ng un de r s ec ti on

11--50 1.1(a). Th e on

l y ev i de nc e h e c l ai med f or t he po lice ha ving t es t ed him under section 11--501.8(a) was the repor ting of hi s BAC resul t as a z eroto le rancev i ol ati

on . B ut, as weh av

e s een , b ec au se

se cti on 11 --5 01 .8( d) man

da tes repor ti n g of re su l ts under b oth sections 11--501.1(a) and 11--501.8(a) , report in g is not an in dic ation of testin

g un de r section 11--50 1.8(a). Th

e tri al court's gran t of de f endan t's m otion to excl ude was th

us i m proper.No. 2-- 07--0220

-12-

For th e rea son

s g i v en, w e rev

er se th e order of

th e c i rc ui t cou rt of C arr oll

County, and we reman d the cause. Reversed a

nd rem anded. BYR NE, P.J., a

nd G ROMETER, J., c oncu

r.